[core-workflow] Help needed: best way to convert hg repos to git?
brett at python.org
Thu Feb 11 22:07:37 EST 2016
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016, 16:43 Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com>
> 2016-02-06 3:03 GMT-03:00 Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com>:
> > 2016-02-05 23:39 GMT-03:00 Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com>:
> >> 2016-02-05 22:57 GMT-03:00 Brett Cannon <brett at python.org>:
> >>> There appear to be multiple ways to convert hg repos to git, but no
> >>> winner. It would be great if some one/people took on the task of
> >>> the tools available out there by converting the cpython repo and seeing
> >>> which one has the best results.
> >> I said I'd look into this. I didn't. Shame on me.
> >> Trying fast-export now :)
> > Update: The fast-export tool started at about 500 revs/sec but
> > progressively slowed down. Now it's 90% done after churning for two
> > hours, and each merge commit (of which there are many!) takes an
> > entire second by itself. I don't feel like staying awake to see it
> > finish.
> I tried fast-export, and I don't really see anything wrong with the
> repository. The size is 221MB.
> It depends on how crazy you want to go. For example, SVN-era merges
> don't appear as merges, but looks like some SVN-era branches don't
> exist in Hg to begin with (Would I need to get cpython-fullhistory?
> Cloning it gives me a 400 Bad Request). Do we care about that?
Good question. If you are not an even clone it then that shows how much
people who are. Honestly I wouldn't worry since we have the history in the
hg repo (converting from svn was necessary to have it available without the
> Or, changes that come from non-committers could have their Author
> field modified, maybe based on the ACKS file modification. It's
> feasible but will take time and manual work. Do we care about that?
That would be great but too much effort.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the core-workflow